Bush’s Legacy in History and the Press

But now, some liberal journalists are stepping back and although they have been strong opponents of Bush’s policies, have belatedly acknowledged that there were times even Bush did the right thing. In Sunday’s Washington Post, Peter Beinart, formerly editor of The New Republic and now a fellow at The Council on Foreign Relations, writes, “It is no longer a close call. President Bush was right about the surge.” In fact, Beinart concludes: Bush’s “decision to increase America’s troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour.” “It would have been far easier to do the opposite,” and Bush “endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated.” Beinart concludes, “He was not only right; he was courageous.” (my emphasis.)

Beinart calls on Democrats to publicly acknowledge this for their own future credibility. It is dangerous, he cautions, for young Democrats to believe that “the right is always wrong.” In fact, he notes, during the Persian Gulf war of Bush 41, Congressional Democrats opposed it and Congressional Republicans supported it, and the “the Republicans were proven right.” On welfare reform, he also adds, liberals predicted disaster, and “disaster didn’t happen.” Today, “liberal self-confidence is sky-high,” and it is too easy for his side to fall into sneeringly dismissing all conservative critics. “No one political party, or ideological perspective,” he concludes, “has a monopoly on wisdom.”

Beinart’s view seems to be in line with the apparent pragmatism and centrism of the incoming Obama Administration. Faulting the Bush administration for not taking liberal critics seriously on issues like regulation and unfettered American might, Beinart seems to be making a case for listening to all arguments, and for putting ideology aside.

Complementing Beinart is the Post’s own editorial, “Mr. Bush Exits.” Although the WP editors fault Bush with his erroneous post-invasion policies, Guantanamo and with the policy of torture, they give credit to Bush when credit is due. In Iraq, they write “there is a decent chance of a reasonably pro-American incipient democracy in the heart of the Arab Middle East. This would be a major accomplishment, and one that would cast the invasion, the failure of the early years of occupation and the painful loss of more than 4,000 American lives and many more Iraqi lives in a different light than the one in which they are seen by most Americans now. It would also vindicate his unpopular decision to stabilize Iraq with more U.S. troops rather than abandon it to civil war and possible genocide-an instance in which Mr. Bush’s self-assurance and steadfastness paid off.”(my emphasis.)

On the issue of AIDS in Africa and his insistence that tyrannies must move towards democracy, their editorial continues, George W. Bush “put the United States firmly on the side of democracy and freedom, arguing, correctly, that the transformation of dictatorial regimes is, in the long run, necessary to peace and security.” The editors fault him for not always living up to his own standards, and not moving quickly enough against the Putin’s government’s drift to authoritarianism. And when Obama moves to close Guantanamo, they caution, he will find that it is not so simple a matter, since a “significant number of those detained there would try to attack America if released.”

That some liberal sources of opinion have, in the very last days of the Bush Administration, tried to make a more balanced assessment is cause for hope. As a historian, I believe that any final judgment about the Bush years must be put off for at least a minimum of ten years, when we can see how things work out in the future, and more records of the administration are made available. Indeed, it is foolish for historians to echo commentators who make firm statements about how history has proved Bush to be evil incarnate. Similarly, I think it foolish for conservative historians to issue contrary assessments. Let history have its say, when time passes and the passions of the moment subside.

As far as I am concerned GWB was an outstanding leader. He kept his major promise, made after 9/11, to make the fight against terror his main priority, and he kept his promise.

The fact that some of his methods were unorthodox and the fact that he took the blame for the incompetance of the New Orleans and Louisiana civil defence, and the incompetance of the wall street execs issimply splitting hairs.

“”"Similarly, I think it foolish for conservative historians to issue contrary assessments.”"”

If anyone is going to be picking up the Bush legacy flag and trying to run it up a hill, it will be big government statists. Bush was not a conservative. He was voted for BY conservatives because we had the usual choice : douche or turd sandwich. He and McCain have done incredible damage to the country in my conservative view, by doing incredible damage to conservatism as a movement.

On the 180th anniversary of Bastille Day, president Nixon’s advisor Henry Kissinger found himself in the same room with Zhou Enlai, the deputy to Mao Tse Tung. Kissinger asked Zhou if he thought the French Revolution was a success.

“It is too soon to tell,” replied Zhou.

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.” — Hegel

This has been clear since his first term. Rolling Stone was not the first to make the case. Helen Thomas proclaimed the same in 2003. Two years in it was already clear. Eight years later all doubt is gone.

Peace.

DS

PS – “This is the worst president ever,” she said. “He is the worst president in all of American history.”

I don’t think Bush should be too upset by the criticims leveled against him by Joe Klein.

Remember, Joe Klein is the guy who authored Primary Colors under a pseudo-name and when confronted about his authorship, Klein, in a very public press conference, lied straight into the camera and his fellow press buddies denying he was the author. All this lying was done to only pump up sales of the book and drive speculation over who the author was.

I believe it will be decades before the community of historians give George Bush the credit he deserves, and they will be historians who are not ensconced in the universities (these are totally owned by the followers of Antonio Gramsci). These historians will work for think tanks and will get their books published by Regnery. It really is that bad. I think the Left has, at this moment, won the battle in the wider society. They won it by penetrating what are called the “transmission belts” of society: education, media, and law.

Joe Klein is a worm. People like him have the positions and influence they have because the Communists have been so successful.

Arrayed against President George W. Bush was the Unholy Alliance: Marxism and Islam. It is a very powerful one. They hold many positions of influence from which they daily pounded away at the narrative that people have in their consciousness. The constant pounding of their message and memes won over most people.

Today’s deification of The Red Diaper Baby is the capstone of their struggle. And I believe it will be the constant threat of bringing up trails for war crimes against Pres. Bush and many in his cabinet and government that the Democrats will use to cow the Republicans to stay down on the floor. These people know how to get power and how to use it. And it’s only the beginning.

I can say with assurance and am witnessing it firt-hand with some of the major news networks (CNN), that in order to excuse their behavior over the last eight years, and excuse their over the top gushing about President-elect Obama, most of the media will doe their part to leave the legacy of President Bush in tatters.

In their eagerness to help this new President they are complaining that President Bush never asked for their help only told them to go shopping. In their eagerness to excuse any mis-step by this new President they are saying their has never been a President in our recent history who has inherited as many problems, and of course all caused by you-know-who. In order to back-track from their appalling behavior and failure to perform their job as journalists, and willingness to forward the messiah impression the public was fed, they will try to calm everyone down and urge them not to expect too much.

Witnessing this does not give me much hope that historians will do their job any better than the media has.

#1 Normal Guy: I suppose the 4500+ young men and women whose lives were thrown away in the Great Iraqi Oil War were not Americans? And I take it from your context that all the non-American (e.g. Iraqi) casualties over the past seven years don’t count?

Get a grip.

And also, the consensus is in: Bush was the worst president this country has ever had themisfortune to endure. We don’t have to wait “decades” to know that. Live with it.

Mr. Radosh, you are absolutely correct in noting that a decade must past before we will see any responsible history of President Bush. I note that from the beginning pre 9/11 the pilloring had begun from the usual suspects.
When you understand how devastating the Florida recount was to the nation and then take note of the severe delays that the then POTUS had in assembling his administration you can begin to understand the how and why of 9/11. If my memory serves me most of the Under secretaries of the cabinet had yet to complete their hearings while the Senate played. At one point the President was accused of “wanting to poison our children” with lead, arsenic or some such in our drinking water.
Follow that with the swift actions in Afghanistan and then (although not so quick) Iraq the naysayers kept their heads down. Once the Abu Ghraib hazing came out it was open season on the President. It seems, that it is still open season on Mr. Bush now that he is out of office. Hopefully, the ANSWER, Code Pinks, et al will go away. Somehow that seems like whistling past the graveyard.

I find it quite telling that sycophantic comments from wingnuts are approved almost instantaneously, while cogent, critical and annotated comments from folks such as myself are delayed for moderator approval.

Is it my viewpoint that is the problem, or is it my citation of facts?

Osama Bin Laden attacked the USA because he believed we were the paper tigers we have been portrayed for years during the clownish Clinton years, …and before. Not so, anymore, our soldiers and George W. (who stood firm, supportive against the odds) have engraved an entirely different picture in these terrorists feverish hate-filled little souls.

Once upon a time I cringed at the American response to attacks by her enemies, but no more, the tiger is awake, hunting and feeding.

For starters, Jimmy Carter was without a doubt the worst president that was ever inflicted on our nation. He continues to be a toxic slack-jawed lackwit that wanders around the globe giving accolades to tyrants.

That said, I agree that W was no conservative. As far a president goes he got dealt a short hand; Tech Bubble, terrorists attacks, a run-down military, and a media that would sink to any peurile level to discredit him. That he was able to go about his business and get re-elected says a lot.

Great? No. Anywhere near the beast that he has been portrayed as? Not a chance. A straight-forward man that is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing? Yes. I think he will be veiwed better by history than his successor.

I’ll take Jack Baur protecting us any day over giving bad guys their Miranda rights….unless they are holding Pelosi and Reid hostage, in which case we should definitely just negotiate. (I’m KIDDING folks, I think).

Keep us safe. I personally don’t care what they do to the terrorist goons at Gitmo.

Non-violence can’t tackle terror: Dalai
…
He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

“They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated…but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed,” the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said “I love President George W Bush.” He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

Obviously he did some things right…but that is only because he has advisers of all sorts who convince him in doing these things…whether bad, or good he usually listens to people. His main fault is that he’s just clueless. He makes me think of that one guy who is always in that pub down the street, no matter what time it is. I think with time, we’ll learn more about the good things he did; but we’ll also uncover more lies and crimes.
R.I.P. BUSH

“That some liberal sources of opinion have, in the very last days of the Bush Administration, tried to make a more balanced assessment is cause for hope.”

Way too little and way too late.

Fact of the matter is that they palyed politics as usual during wartime.

Follow what would have happenned if Bush had capitulated to the positions of the Left as endorsed by the likes of Time, the WaPo and Rolling Stone,(Rolling Stone as a history reference? GMAFB!).

No Surge…what would Iraq be now?

No wiretapping or water-boarding…would we have been hit again?

It’s a tricky business trying to divine what would have happenned, but we can draw a parallel from the Bush 41 Administration.

Bush 41 unilaterally ceased-fire after liberating Kuwait, in no small part on the advice of Gen. Colin Powell, and at the insistence of the contemporary anti-war Left at the time. This was premature, and support for the Shia and Kurd insurrections never materialized.

What was bequeathed us from that decision was 12 years of Sadaam Hussein, sitting on 500 tons of yellowcake uranium and mustard gas warheads, defying the UN’s weak attempt at sanctions and rebuilding his strength, while mass-murdering the dissident elements of his society.

If any want to know why the 2003 war in Iraq was necessary, they need only look back to that cease-fire of 1991, and who it was that was opposed to Desert Storm at the time.

I do think that history will be kind to George W. Bush, especially if the fragile democracy in Iraq takes root and grows stronger. Bush will probably be judged like Harry Truman, who was considered a failure after he left office. When Truman left office he had a 26% approval rating and the war in Korea was still raging with heavy American casualties. But historians over the years (especially David McCullough) now consider Truman to be one of the greatest post war presidents. Truman took the first major stand against the spreading of Communism and the Soviet Union, while Bush took the first major stand against Islamo-Fascism. Although the war in Korea was still raging when Truman left office, the war in Iraq seems almost over while the war in Afghanistan seems far from over. The economies for both Bush and Truman were not good, although the crash for Bush was much tougher than anything Truman had to experience. But both men displayed tough, resilliant, leadership during a time of war and while Truman invested millions of dollars in the reconstruction of Europe after World War II, Bush invested millions of dollars for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa, more than any other president.

And for all you left-wing lunatics, Kool Aid drinkers, and Bush bashers out there who think American is the evil empire, who see conspiracies around every corner, and who think that America’s greatest days are behind us, let me save you the trouble of commenting on my post. I know you’ll never honestly admit that Bush did anything right so why don’t you just save your bitter bile and MoveOn to the Daily Kos and spew your venom there. Why all of you left-wing nutroots are still so angry is beyond me, since your massiah was just sworn into office today. I just hope he has the backbone, nerve, and resilliance George W. Bush had when facing some enormous problems, like the attacks on 9/11.

Leave to the GOP to turn a mostly successful war into a colossal failure, and then crow about their success!

Iraq was contained when Bush took office, and free of Jihadi influence. Now it is a mess, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, as well as thousands of our troops.

Americans would have been much better off if Bush 43 had not been installed. Bush 41 didn’t need wiretapping privileges and torture to keep us safe at home – why was 43 so much less capable?

A balanced assessment of 43 will still indicate his culpability for war crimes, his failure to prevent or contain the credit crisis, and his abandonment of Constitutional principles of government. This is his legacy. Just wait and see.

Um, Mikey, Jack Bauer isn’t real. There is this entertainment media called “Television,” wherein actors such as Kiefer Sutherland, partake in character roles shown on a weekly basis. One more time: Jack. Bauer. Isn’t. Real. In fact, Mr. Sutherland has more socialistic leanings than anything else. (Charlie Rose 1/12/2007)

To think that history will somehow vindicate BUSH et al. is a continued practice in willful ignorance and amnesia. FYI, 8 years prior to 9/11 also saw no terrorist attacks on American soil from non-domestic sources. I do not think that can be considered the yardstick of measurement. A world that hates us, a deficit of unimaginable magnitude, two wars of failure (in actual countries), torture abuse, etc. If you voted for this, you may want to comfort yourself in amnesia as taking responsibility for your vote would clearly be a task you are incapable of undertaking.

Ask yourselves why did BUSH et al. need to subvert the Constitution to “protect America”? His father, as noted above, did not need to undertake such tasks. Why do you find it acceptable for your leader to not disclose to his people, us, the who/what/when/where/why/how of certain situations? Why was it so important to politicize everything and divide this nation.

Live in your ignorance and bask in your amnesia.

The rest of us will be moving forward under the banner of President Obama and the reconcilation of America’s name throughout the world.

First time I am proud of a President in many, many years. Honor, dignity, morality! Please return to America!

26. David S: Are you utterly deviod of any history? Bush41 ended the fight against Saddam too soon at the demand of the UN and our Peaceniks, the armistice that was signed only suspended the war. Eight years of Bubba allowing Saddam to flaunt the provisions of the armistice combined with the effete actions of the UN to ensure that Saddam was never even challenged. Bubba also did NOTHING about the threat of AQ.
If you remember the First Gulf War with any clarity you would recall that Afghanistan sent troops to fight on OUR side, while Bubba was in charge they changed into opponents, then enemies. Bubba also failed to take any effective action against them when he had the chance. The terror organization that they built on his watch made the 9-1-1 attacks possible.
Bush 43 had to clean up the mess left to him by the B.J. President. As always it is harder to clean up a mess than to make one.
BTW please enumerate the war-crimes of which you speak, be clear, give dates and documented events and stipulate the international convention violated. If you have any proof I would join you in the demand for charges being brought, otherwise just shut you yap. There is too much lefty clap-trap out there already.

Once you have reviewed the easily discovered evidence, we can discuss the appropriate venue for Bush’s war crimes trial.

Also, you might want to examine your timeline on the rise of the Taliban. They were brought to power by Reagan and Bush 41 during the war with the Soviets, and then abandoned at the conclusion of that conflict. This is a problem the GOP created long before Clinton came on the scene. Clinton did work to repair the damage, but as you say “As always it is harder to clean up a mess than to make one.”

An idex of future events is if and when the commedians do their duty and find ways to poke fun at the new president. Bush and Cheney were certainly ripe and knee-jerk fodder for the dumb and mean jokes. Does Obama have so much teflon and politically correct clout that he can not be lampooned? Surely the jokesters of America can not be so recessed that no humor flows with the entitlements. When will they vote more than” present?”

David S, you give yourself odd credit for balanced analysis. I have yet to read anywhere, by any person on the left in the last few years, an evaluation in the form “he did mostly bad things, a few good ones, and was a terrible president.” Those disliking him – without exception – seem unable to find even the slightest argument in his favor. You are yourself an example of this, as are other commenters here. Sweeping, categorical assessments are seldom accurate, though they apparently impress the unwary.

The thing I don’t understand is why, after they succeeded in destroying George W. Bush and he is now leaving office they cannot stop with the absurd need to bury the man under more rocks and dirt.

These people do not even know how to be graceful in victory. They won their political war. Today their man is sworn in (and that sure was a botched oath ceremony if I ever saw one!). Soon they will be getting the goodies they’ve been salivating after. They have huge majorities in the House and Senate. They will have enormous gains in the judiciary, even if no one on the Supreme Court retires or dies before the four years are up. They HAVE IT ALL, and yet it is not enough.

Their operatives are still here in the Right blogosphere, trying to savage George Bush still.

Unjustly atacking Bush, or any other “safe” target gives meaning to their lives…a group they can belong to.
It’s a transnational phenomenon, apparently, since likewise empty and aimless foreigners take up the hobby and join in to tell us Americans how much they dissaprove of our President, (as if we care).

I’m sitting on a ship in the Gulf of Mexico, but even from here, it’s manifestly apparent that there are a lot of lonely and disconnected people out there.

Positive Bush Legacy points (for my friend #38 avoidswork who apparently has a very short term memory…..)

1. Initial response to 9/11.
2. Huge AIDS charity to Africa which went totally unnoticed by the left.
3. His willingness to have a backbone and stand up for his ideals even at the expense of his “legacy”. Obama has already started swaying in the wind like a willow.
4. Downgraded his second inaugural festivities because of the war. Did Obama follow suit?
5. Took a stand for life and the sanctity of marriage (does that count as two things?)
6. Didn’t let the Democratic Congress of the last 2 years buffalo him into anything even in the face of the MSM onslaught.
7. Was a friend to the troops and earned their respect and support (which should count for twice as much as an average citizen in my estimation).
8. Helped with the smoothest transition for Obama to move into the Presidential role/White House in recent memory.
9. Put the first BLACK WOMAN in as the Secretary of State
10. Was an honest, decent, honorable man from start to finish and never governed by the polls.

2) Relations with India are exceptional. This is a long-term bene. India is a major country, and a rising power, and Bush has set it up so that we can have permanent good relations with them.

3) Continuing good relations with China (as good as they can get, anyway).

4) Not bailing on Iraq in 2006, when he had almost no support on the issue. His decision to go ahead with the surge, and ramming it through a hostile Congress was a miracle. Having an allied, secular, semi-democratic Iraq will have long-term benes.

5) Colombia is much improved due to a change in prosecuting the Drug War. There’s a reason McCain went there during the campaign. The situation there is just worlds better.

6) Al Qaeda is on the run. Their stature is greatly damaged since the surge. We killed some 40,000 plus sympathizers. After all their misbehavior in Iraq, which led to the Awakening, Muslims all over are far less sympathetic to their cause. They are resurgent a bit in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but nowhere as politically strong as they used to be. Iraq was very, very bad for them. They seemed to have victory in hand, and Bush turned it around on them. This was his Vietnam, and he won it.

7) Recovery from 9/11. Thank God a human being like Bush was there to reassure the nation, instead of a wooden puppet like Gore.

8) Economic turnaround. He inherited a recession and the dot.com bust, then 9/11. He got his tax policies implemented, which led to a boom in the economy.

9) He tried many times to avert the housing bust, but Congressional Dems blocked him at every turn. In 2008 alone, before the bubble really burst, he approached Congress 17(!) times to try to avert it. Dems ignored him.

10) Overhaul of FEMA. Bush got blamed for Katrina. He wisely decided not to land there, because security concerns would have interfered with relief efforts, meaning more would have died. FEMA was never set up as a proactive organization. They were to be merely a secondary organization to the efforts of individual State Governnors; a resource for them. After Katrina, it was turned around, and proved its worth last year. Wow. An effective overhaul of a government agency! There is a God!

I could go on, but you get the picture. He wasn’t perfect, by any measure, but he was mostly effective. He was, however, very unlucky. He got 9/11. He got Katrina. He got a sudden oil price spike. He got the housing bubble. None of these things were within his control. They’d've happened to anyone else in the office.

The only knock on him, really, is:

The invasion of Iraq (bad intel and lack of understanding of the nature of the beast with which he was dealing);

His response to the current fiscal crisis (making it worse by turning Socialist);

His failure to communicate and defend his policies. He surrendered to the media.

I do not have a short-term memory, just significant disagreements with your assessments.

#1 – he ended up wasting that “political capital”, making the glaring differences between the man that was a uniter post that horrific tragedy to a political tool of fear.
#2 – agree
#3 – I disagree. He did not take responsibility for s**t because that is not in his character make-up.
#4 – The fact that THIS made your list demonstrates his lack of legacy. Suprised you didn’t add “didn’t cheat on wife and worked out daily.”
#5 – I disagree. He reduced quality of life for many women/working families. Sanctity of marriage is a crock, anyway. If BritBrit Spears gets to be married for 55 hours due to a drunken walk down the aisle, then get it annulled, why not allow another couple (despite gender) to do the same?
#6 – ((rolls eyes))
#7 – Again, the fact that this is in the Legacy list is sad. A “friend” to the troops would not have put deplorable people in charge of the VA, been much more concerned about atrocious conditions at the VA, the lack of the VA to categorize PSTD as a condition, etc. The families that have been hard hit because of this war and the govt’s relinquishing of promises regarding enlistment and the like. And don’t get me started about the obscence incidences of rape by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan OF THEIR OWN WOMEN SOLDIERS.
#8 – Because he hadn’t been engaged in running America for months… But I’ll give you a half point, like David S. said, for “credit”.
#9 – And then allowed her to be subverted recently in Israel… Fine, another half point.
#10 – ((threw up in mouth))

So, in your list of 10, I give you a two. And one of those is made up of two 1/2 points.

All in all, he led this country for EIGHT years and this is what you can list?

I geniunely do not believe time will aid Bush’s Legacy. Time will only go to have support, documents and testimonials to support his Grand Cr*ppiness.

Why is it that you guys must come here on THIS topic on this particular day and you feel it important to not just continue destroying this man, but kicking dirt over him? Is it not enough that you effectively destroyed his presidency? Is it not enough that the leadership of the Democratic Party is contemplating war crimes trails?

You won the political war. But it seems that that is not enough. You seek to demoralize the people who appreciate what he sacrificed for the nation.

While your at it putting more in your shovel, why don’t you mention the roving Islamic sniper team of the older guy and the kid too? Must have slipped your mind in your wild enthusiasm to get in one more shot, eh?

The anthrax attacks may have been part of the same schedule of attacks planned by al Qaeda in the Fall of that year. But after the Fall of 2001, there were no more attacks inside the U.S.

But you didn’t even want to give the man one credit at all. You want him a** raped in public, humiliated, destroyed, and in disgrace.

You people really are low class. We are never going to forget or forgive this. Just wait and see. Payback is going to be a bitch, but at least we will make sure the criticism is fair. You people, on the other hand, would take a baseball bat to the crotch of a small kid. Pathetic.

You cannot even be gracious in victory. At least Obama shows more class towards President Bush than you people do. I may not have voted for your guy, but at least I can and do notice whatever good there is or potential that could be there. I won’t gratuitously trash him.

But do not mistake the chiefest (pun intended) irony of them all here. Liberals ought to love, I mean really love, GWB. He is the reason they’ll be around for longer, to wit, to “practice their love with patients all over the country”.

The irony I can’t quite wrap my brain around is that liberals — like non-alphas the animal kingdom over — are often quite taken with the exercise of autocratic power (perceived or actual autocracy mind you) as the perfect dominant complement to their deep-seated capitulatory and arrogantly submissive psychological disposition. Why then no such attraction to GWB? Insofar as the man played offense against terror at a time when a western democracy urgently needed a demonstration that it can play offense, liberals ought hail GWB as the savior of their enduring right to practice their willfully pedestrian world outlook. Lament the wrongs of his administration and begin the propaganda manufacture about his legacy, if it so appeals to you; but understand: the chief irony is that it is his — and only his — conduct of foreign policy and defense that has underwritten and further prolonged the existence of the highest and best enabler of the distinctive brand of sheltered idiocy purveyed by the garden variety 21st century American liberal. If instead our nation succumbed to the weak, naive, and quasi-pubescent yearnings of the afflicted liberal mind, our nation would not survive as long to nurture your obsession with imagined problems of egalitarian angst. Much the same as the days of Europe — your kindred bastion of bankrupt liberal sentiment — would be numbered were it not for American power.

So my point is, you liberals really ought to like GWB. I for one wish he would have played more offense against the media. Probably more of you liberal twits would be disabused of some of your uniformly incomplete rhetorical deployments.

True techincally, but BS in the larger sense. The “no WMDs” meme is only a half-truth. The same ballyhooed post-invasion report that confirmed *stockpiles* could not be found, also absolutely *did* confirm that SH held on to all his plans, designs, key equipment, and scientists and had every intention of resuming full-blown WMD efforts once the sanctions regime collapsed.

Support for sanctions was crumbling under the influence Oil-For-Food kickbacks to France, RUssia et al, and opposition by leftwing groups (now claiming to be for sanctions) who parroted SH’s propaganda about the number of innocent death’s supposedly caused by the sanctions. The leftists wanted sanctions *dropped* becasue SH was a fellow anti-American. ‘ll add that to the extent that people died becasue of sanctions, it was becasue of SH himself withheld the aid (that he didn’t siphon off for kickbacks) as a club at home.

Now that President Bush has left the Presidency, it’s becoming popular coming up with a list of where President Bush went wrong and all the mistakes President Bush made. That is based on the country we have now. Reality is good for those who wish to accept it. After 9/11 there was a good possibility that we could get attacked again. No one knew for sure. Not even the critics. Every day, everyone, including the critics went to bed waiting to see if today was the day. When nothing happened, people still waited. In fact the reality of it all, is that the people wait, including the critics to see, if before President Bush left office we would be attacked again. Which brings to mind another reality as to why President Bush was elected for a second term. Everyone wants their cake and eat it too, including the critics. It wasn’t only the Republicans and Conservatives who voted for President Bush a second time. Many Democrats voted to keep President Bush right where he was to insure that they got what they wanted. Safety and security. When we were attacked on 9/11, the possibility existed that it was only the beginning of more attacks. Possibility is everything when your attacked. It was based on that possibility that the intelligence handed to President Bush was correct. President Bush could not ignore the possibility of terrorism coming to this country so he acted before the terrorist had time to attack again. The country we see now is the country President Bush promised us, minus the car bombs, suicide bombers, and kidnappings in protest of the war in Iraq. The country we see now is the country who still conducts it’s business as usual. The country we see now is not the country the terrorist wanted to give us. The country we see now is not the country the war on terrorism was fought on. So for everyone who has made of list of where President Bush went wrong and all the mistakes he’s made. Thank goodness for that list, because it’s based on a country President Bush promised us and not a worn torn country the terrorist wanted to give us. We still have our way of life those who attacked us wanted to change. We aren’t living our lives in fear, death and destruction thanks to President Bush.

“People” like Pat J (#46) and David S (#35) remind me of the stuff you step into on a warm day. It doesn’t smell nice and it’s hard to get rid of. To quote Pat J, “Relax Dude.” After all, your guy won the election. I thought you’d be happy. Instead you’re the same, nasty, bitter, liers that you’ve always been and always will be. A new day has dawn and your massiah is now in office. Take a break, breath the fresh air, and take a walk in the woods. Hope a tree falls on you.

The Bush-haters talk about the “unnecessary war with Iraq” and claim that there were no Jihadis there, and Iraq was contained.
‘
Obviously spoken like true Democrats. True Bigoted Democrats who hate minorities. Bigoted Democrats who deliberately choose to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people killed by Saddam (but hey – they have darker skins, they are rag heads, they are too stupid to handle democracy – so having a strong ruler (i.e. – tyrant) is all the Iraqi people deserve.

Of course, the fact that a Federal Judge, in a legal suit against Saddam and his government – found that Saddam had aided Al Qaeda and was liable for claims by victims of terrorism – won’t deter these Bush-haters. The fact that Saddam paid terrorist families $25,000 for successful homicide bombers is ignored when claiming Saddam had no links to terrorists.

Ultimately, it comes down to Democrat Bush Haters giving terrorists a pass for crimes against humanity (think of the invasion of Kuwait – 600 wells torched, etc. – Saddam should have been rounded up and executed). So Saddam fails to live up to the armistice accords, and is taken out ….rightfully so – AND authorized by Congress ….but somehow it is Bush’s fault! IDIOTS. There are 3 terrorist in custody who like to cut head off – and are illegal combatants and are not entitled to Geneva Convention Protections because they wage war against civilians, don’t wear uniforms, etc ….. and after Pres. Bush authorizes waterboarding of these 3 …. the Democrat Bush-haters are sympathetic to the terrorists, and want Bush tried for war-crimes. Of course – these Bush-haters are actually very sympathetic to the terrorists – because many of these Bush-haters also hate Jews and Israel.

So obviously, the Democrats don’t believe in democracy and freedom form most people in the world – just them. Obviously, they would prefer to have dictators maintain “the peace.” Bush committed the unpardonable sin – he liberated 50 million people and is giving them a chance at freedom, and it sticks in the craw of these Bush-haters.

Of course – go back to the 1850′s – and the Democrats were racist bigots supporting slavery, and working hard to prevent the elimination of slavery – and they forced a Civil War. After loosing the Civil War, the Democrats created their own insurgency in the South – the KKK – the “armed wing” of the Democrat Party. The Democrats hated the Republicans for bring freedom to the blacks … and the Democrats worked hard to oppress the blacks …both with laws (segregation, etc.) and the KKK (the terrorist wing of the Democrats.)

Think about it ….the Democrat party hasn’t changed much …they were and still are bigots and now they are also Marxist/Fascists. Not much to be proud of in the Democrat party.

You are the one that brought up the ex-President’s anus. I just want him tried in a court of law. Why this fixation with rape?

Sure, he authorized the torture of others, but I would prefer to convict him with untainted evidence.

He has already humiliated himself, destroyed our economy, and left the Presidency in disgrace.

Gracious in victory is one thing, but failing to prosecute an admitted war criminal would not set a good precedent. I expect that Bush will not be prosecuted in the US, though I think this is unfortunate.

PPS – Why do you liken Bush to a small kid? He is a grown adult who carried the awesome responsibility of holding the nuclear codes for the arsenal of the USA. His trashing is not gratuitous. It is very well deserved.

The fact that some obamaniacs booed our outgoing President of the United States today has now completely polarized me to anything demoncrats have to offer within their party. How utterly disgusting can you people be? It makes me sick to my stomach and now you idiots want to have him tried? It really shows what democrats are at heart, Socialists!

Good article by Mr,Radosh, with the usual brainless talk show level parroting in the comment section.
As far as Iraq goes, it was a costly mistake. Did anyone ever come to conclusion that the organized jihaists forces, Al Qaeda and some copy cars, were not only miniscule, but mainly rolled up by conventional law enforcement means, not military action? Or are you so dim witted that as long as Bush attacked the Muslims somewhere ,ipso facto it meant he was fighting the terrorists, whoever they may be. As if they had more than 1/10000th the strength of fascists and commies of yore

Dave S; interesting articles, they offer no proof of violations, or cite any laws broken. Innuendo and allegation are not criminal charges. None of the sources are what any rational person would consider a reliable source for hard data.

As I have said before this isn’t television, you can’t criminally charge some body just because you don’t like them. The Geneva Conventions exclude persons taken under arms and not fighting in uniforms and for a recognized power as illegal combatants, excluding them from the rights given lawful combatants and exempting the capturing power from the requirements of the Conventions. From the articles Bush’s crime was that he asked Congress to recognize this fact and not afford these foriegn war criminals access to US courts.

Clinton started rendition as a general practice, not W.

Bubba stood by watching as AQ slipped into Afghanistan (I didn’t say anything about the Taliban, those seventh century perverts weren’t exporting their social program). BTW Reagan and Bush 41 supported the mujihadeen vs the Soviets, at that time the Talis were just a faction. They rose to power later.

there is, unfortunately, no chance for the demoralized cultural default minds to appreciate genuine greatness in any form whatever. the rage against george bush is just one of the manifestations of this destabilizing moral deficit. the inability to be satisfied in victory is the hallmark of every revolutionary sensibility; it is in fact not the result but the cause that animates the struggle. its ravages can be seen everywhere, but not by its disciplies, witting or unwitting, some of whose spiritual wreckage is displayed on these page every day. it is depressing.

george bush was a good man who withstood an unprecedented onslaught at home and a formidible realignment of enemies, whose strategy depended on the kind of criticism on display here. unfortunately, since they know little of reality, the true dimensions and nature of this realignment can never be explained to them – you would have to go back to the beginning, of sorts, and this their debased souls, like tiny children, could never tolerate, and so they cannot learn.

it is not bush’s failure to communicate, rhetorically ungifted as he might be – the failure is yours, trolls. stop acting like a bunch of idiots and pick up a book. the new test will come. you might want to learn something about it before you’re standing there blinking at it.

#42 avoidswork….I do find it amusing that you bashed most of my points that concerned Bush’s humanity and willingness to have convictions. I guess it would be hard for a liberal-lefter to give credit for those qualities when they are so painfully absent in your candidates. Will you feel the same when Obama’s record (as demonstrated already by his cabinet choices) will read “Ditto Bush’s” when historians reflect on it? You voted in hope and change. Thank you. We got a teleprompter reader extraordinaire who is keeping the status quo. About the only “change” I see on the horizen is closing Gitmo and bringing the animals to the mainland for trail. Such progressive change!

#55 Richard Wells….Sorry to deflate your liberal balloon there friend but the only thing that got your “progressive” (yeah right) candidate elected was the failure of the African Americans to take advantage of the educational system. They voted out of skin color and not issues. Everybody not getting Obama emails on their Blackberry knows that.

1. AIDS relief in Africa
2. Established the “Do Not Call List”
3. Failed to destroy Social Security

Bad things about George Bush
1. Destroyed the economy
2. Declared war against Iraq for no particular reason
3. Destroyed the environment
4. Ignored warnings about impending terrorist attack which allowed 9/11 to happen.
5. Destroyed the constitution
6. Put incompetent person in charge of FEMA then said he was doing a heck of a job.
7. Made the rest of the world hate America.
8. Haliburton
9. Helped destroy industry in America
10. While Bush policies harmed American military recruitment, he was the chief cause of recruitment for Islamic terrorist organizations.

I am a historian. It’s true that the worst U.S. President competition features some worthy contenders (Grant and Harding come to mind), I am certain that George W. will top them all. Bush will not be vindicated by history. This is only fitting considering that Bush ignored history. If he had studied the history of nations that invade Afghanistan things might have turned out differently. As it is Bush will be remembered as the man who was handed a country that had won the Cold War and had a booming economy and blew it.

#57 David S…..Are you from another planet David? Surely you’re not so politically correct as to not notice the exit polling? I guess in your world we don’t mention the obvious? Me racist? No. You simple-minded? Yes.

I live in the same country you do. The difference is that I prefer not to make unfounded claims with no factual support.

I noticed you didn’t cite any exit polls to support your position, and imply that African Americans voted based on skin color, rather than on the issues. You also make the claim that African Americans fail to take advantage of the educational system and that you believe this is a reason for their voting for Obama.

I think the argument that McCain voters are less educated and more racist is better supported by the available data.

Whites who graduated from college were more likely to support Obama than those with no college education.

McCain voters are pessimistic about the future of race relations.

It turns out the age of the candidate was much more of a factor than the race of the candidate.

If you really believe that your statement above is not racist, show me what evidence you based it on.

DEAR #45 FRED, MY FREINDS ARE ALWAYS JOKEING WITH ME THAT I AM CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL BECAUSE I AM REPUBLICAN, AND WHEN YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT A$$ RAPE AND BASEBALL BATS TO NUTS, YOU ARE NOT DOING ME ANY FAVOURS THANKS.

It will interesting to see what history books list as the reasons on which Bush based his decision to invade Iraq. Will they exclude the central document that shaped his decisions as have most discussions over the last 5 years?

UNSC resolution 1441 was the blueprint for the resumption of weapons inspections. It clearly spelled out the UN case against Iraq established between 1990 and 1998. It held Iraq in “material breach” of the conditions Iraq had accepted in return for the cease fire ending the hostilities of the first Gulf war. It spelled out what was REQUIRED OF IRAQ to no longer be in “material breach”.

The FIRST requirement was the resumption of weapons inspections. We heard much about those inspections and that inspectors found no WMD.

The SECOND requirement was a current and complete DECLARATION of all aspects of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons PROGRAMS. The inspectors’ mission was not only to establish that Iraq had no weapons stockpiles but ALSO that it had totally dismantled its WMD programs and could not produce any NEW WMD.

We heard comparatively little about this second requirement, but Iraq NEVER complied with it. It submitted a declaration, but Hans Blix rejected it and referred to Iraq’s lack of cooperation on the declaration in the reports he gave to the UN in December of 2002 and in 2003.

1441 had stated that “false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations”.

The continuing refusal of Iraq to comply with the second of 1441′s requirements for
Iraq convinced those who supported an invasion that Iraq was still not serious about total disarmament. Without it, it was impossible to certify that Iraq did not have the capability for producing new WMD and the means to deliver them once sanctions were lifted. And THAT was exactly what Iraq was required to prove.

Well, I call it as I see it. It is not my normal habit to use that kind of imagery, but I wanted to have a dramatic effect that caught the very indecent nature of what they are doing to President Bush.

Make no mistake about it. These people are vicious, opportunistic, and they are not patriots, however much they protest that point.

And I do not like the Left. In fact, I hate these people. They talk a good game about “social justice” and “human rights,” but from my days on the Left, admittedly over 20 years ago, I determined that these people are phonies through and through. Do you know any truly ethical Marxists? I met very, very few. I took a lot of crap from these people, when I was on the Left, because I was a Roman Catholic Christian. Today, their is even more animosity from these smug f***s towards the spiritual traditions of the West. They only run cover for Islam, as the Muslims are now their pet victims who take precedence over things like 3,000 civilians on 9/11 and hundreds more American servicemen since 1979.

President Bush had his priorities straight and he took his oath of office seriously every day he was on the job.

So, let your friends joke with you. They know jack s**t about anything of any significance. Besides, you know damn well that they say foul and unfair things about President Bush and anyone who is a conservative. I’d tell them to kiss my $$s.

This is just too terribly rich to resist. A complete response to a post by “a [canadian] historian” #65.

Good things about George Bush

1. AIDS relief in Africa [thanks for acknowledging something good for this continent, at least someone cares -- other than GWB I mean]
2. Established the “Do Not Call List” [as if you needed that not to be called]
3. Failed to destroy Social Security [social security is there to support people who do not save for their later years. while necessary for some who cannot provide for themselves, how can you hold social security up as something worth saving? if the Congress could stop spending from the 'trust' fund it might actually be a solvent program, but for now, it is a huge unfunded liability that prevents us from, let's see... fully funding welfare? subsidizing renewable energy? too bad we don't have the capital for that!]

Bad things about George Bush
1. Destroyed the economy [sorry, twit. how many conservatives do you know who are out there signing home loans they cannot afford? honestly, how many conservatives that you know personally have done that? compare that to the number of liberals you know who have done that, and the answer should be evident even to a historian]
2. Declared war against Iraq for no particular reason [Congress authorized this, so it's Bush plus somewhere around 500 others. By the way Iraq had been violating its own cease-fire commitments ever since the previous gulf war. The resumption of hostilities is the only credible deterrent to disrespecting your own treaty in the civilized world. Bush's only mistake was selling that the wrong way to folks like you, who can't possibly be expected to understand why any war is necessary. Although I personally wouldn't have done it.]
3. Destroyed the environment [Three words -- Y O U. You're the schmuck who drives a car and burns natural gas in your house. Honestly, why do you think that is someone else's fault? seriously, how can you not see that you are the problem? don't worry, I am too, if it helps you feel any better]
4. Ignored warnings about impending terrorist attack which allowed 9/11 to happen. [That's right. I'm sure he did that. He seems like the type. What kind of historian are you? Too bad Sandy Berger smuggled those docs out of the national archives in his flipping pants. anybody here doubt that the name Osama was hand-written on there somewhere?]
5. Destroyed the constitution [in fact, he protected it. in order to do so you have to embrace that judges are not legislators, which his appointments to the Court clearly demonstrate. he also happened to make sure that foreign threats to this important human achievement were taken out. a constitution is only as good as the rule of law that respects it and the security of the nation that values it, a historian ought to know that, of all people].
6. Put incompetent person in charge of FEMA then said he was doing a heck of a job. [Your one correct charge.]
7. Made the rest of the world hate America. [sorry, lady -- you did that yourself by loving freedom and having the natural resources and respect for law that allows it to thrive without interference. you think Iranian kids don't love America? invite one over sometime.]
8. Haliburton [is your ire not directed at the shareholders? what is your historian's pension into? Exxon Mobil?]
9. Helped destroy industry in America [industry meaning what? lending to folks who can't afford it? running around giving financial advice? or Haliburton? because of these things, Haliburton is the only actual industry]
10. While Bush policies harmed American military recruitment, he was the chief cause of recruitment for Islamic terrorist organizations. [sorry, sister. the actual terrorist recruitment that we have evidence of referred to america as a "paper tiger". there are two people responsible for that -- Bill Clinton (who I actually voted for), and Jimmy Carter. Are you telling me that Reagan and GWB helped send this signal out there? watch discovery channel sometime. perceived weakness invites aggression].

I am a historian. [All your comments suggest the opposite. Just an opinion, but actual historians generally do not indict Presidents until years after the fact] It’s true that the worst U.S. President competition features some worthy contenders (Grant and Harding come to mind), [worst this century: Carter, or perhaps LBJ for amplifying the Vietnam conflict] I am certain that George W. will top them all. [W was the right guy at the right time; history will bear this out] Bush will not be vindicated by history. [what kind of historian believes history is anything other than ambivalent] This is only fitting considering that Bush ignored history. [I'm betting that Bush knows more about history than you give him credit for] If he had studied the history of nations that invade Afghanistan things might have turned out differently. [so history prescribes nonintervention? interesting that you should believe that] As it is Bush will be remembered as the man who was handed a country that had won the Cold War and had a booming economy and blew it. [America didn't 'in the cold war' -- rather, the soviet union, as all socialist economies, failed. and the 'booming' economy of which you speak was actually called a 'bubble'. that's what it is when capital finds its way to companies that have no value and no product. besides, wasn't Bush still a drinking man when all that took root?]

All this Bush bashing. Its gone on for years. Ill admit he was a poor public speaker and like any human, he made a few blunders.
Its interesting that when the media reviews his challenges and accomplishments, they never include Presidents Bush’s direct and powerful response to the Great Asian Tsunami. I watched it unfold. I was very proud to be an American.

Historically speaking, he’s going to come out on the plus side–but this really is a discussion that should be held in about 25 years and really come into its own in about 40 years.

I think this is a matter of bitter liberal arts majors clinging to their BDS hatred and rhetorical skills of writing two pages while saying nothing, to paraphrase this guy who seems to be very much in vogue right now.

I sense an irony industry popping up for liberals. Target ranges where the target is a picture of the ex-president, so that even liberals can enjoy the pleasures of clinging to their guns. As for their religion, well who can beat post-modern nihilism–on second thought, ban the guns from the liberals. Then again…

Seriously, all of this Bush bashing has got to become tiresome to its practitioners pretty soon. But where is all that hate going to go?

There’s no real debate about Bush’s “legacy” among people in the know than there is about global warming: Bush not only totally sucked as a President, but he was a bad, bad person who brought in a lot of bad, bad people into government. If you believe global warming is BS, then you probably believe that Bush is an honest, goodhearted man who may have made some bad choices, but kept this this country safe — but you would be very, very wrong on all counts (except for the bad choices bit).

Given that he was re-elected, then in the worst case, Bush will be remembered as the best choice in a field of poor ones. That much ought to be apparent.

Harry Truman was lauded later for his vision of containment vis a vis the USSR/worldwide communist movement despite having many vocal detractors at the time he left office. The jury is out but Bush will be later judged by his vision of how to handle worldwide terrorism.

My guess is that history will prove Bush correct. The USA exports cultural WMD’s ranging from Coca Cola and jeans to rock and roll and iPods and Paris Hilton. It is unavoidable. This onslaught has been and will continue to be resisted in some quarters in various ways. One of these is manifested in terrorism. In otherwise contained counties (e.g. present day Iran, while noisy re nukes) cultural WMD’s will likely have worked their magic within another generation; cultural attitudes there are shifting noticeably. In other countries there are elements of the society who will resist violently.

Truman recognized that the US was physically powerful enough to contain threats via world war in which the US would likely win, thus imposing our will. Bush recognized that in winning the cold war as per Truman doctrine we are perceived as The Borg and will assimilate all.

I am not decrying GWB as Eeeeee-vil. (That honor belongs to Richard B. Cheney) I understand that Bush is considered a compassionate man who was gracious to friends/family of those in the White House, etc. Big whoop since he never showed it to the American people BY ACTIONS.

Humanity: Um, yeah. Unless he’s a Cylon (again, honor may go to DickBCheney), I’ll classify him as a human. But he wasn’t the man we needed during these tragedies we have been suffering.

In essence — You and I use words much differently.

His response to Katrina was a national tragedy. In his own words, he thinks not landing the plane was a “whoops”. Not that he didn’t get down there sooner or seem so remote. Not that he, nor his administration (and not including the appointing of a horse dude to head up FEMA) failed to appreciate the WARNINGS by the Army, et al. about the capacities of the levees. He takes no responsibility for FEMA’s utter lack of competency.

You may have a “conviction” that Jack Bauer is the most awesomest character ever. You may have a “conviction” that anyone who is Muslim is affiliated with terrorism. You may have a “conviction” that Obama is the worst president elected in history. You may have a “conviction” that current Republicans hold true the values of conservatism.

Does that mean your “conviction” is correct? Does that mean that you don’t alter your “conviction” in the face of evidence and/or personal experiences?

He had a “conviction” that Rummy was awesome and would stay as SecDef. Of course, the second (actually, two days later) Republicans got there arses handed to them in the 2006 elections, Rummy was gone.

It is not enough, as a leader of a nation comprising 300+ million people, to have personal compassion, humanity and the like. What did his Administration espouse?

Nothing. The people he surrounded himself with, the people he had in charge of things in America and abroad, did not show us anything.

“Bush’s Legacy” is more that solely GWB, it is what his administration stood for.

Not the little people, Wall Street and K Street.
No support for our troops – their families lived in continued impoverished states within the US, bonuses were not what was promised by the Army, standards were lowered for recruits so those with honor and w/o a criminal history had to serve with those who are less qualified to wear the uniform, VA Affairs, enough body armor, better armored vehicles. What about kicking KBR/Blackwater to the curb? What about the electrocutions you are hearing of regarding our troops in facilities built by these no-bid contractors.
ZERO leadership in this current economic crisis.

In general, there was no leadership except terrible leadership. And if that was the “best” that he could do, then he’s even more deplorable than I think. You wouldn’t let your children get away with half the stuff this administration got away with. Your kid lied to your face, I’d think you would do somethign about that. Hold them accountable. Take away car keys, cellphone, etc. Not shrug your shoulders and say they “meant well” or they are “nice kids.”

You wanna have low presidential expectations? Be my guest. I want more. I don’t need to have a beer with Obama or play a game of pick-up. I don’t need to think he’s “cool” or “folksy”.

I WANT MY COUNTRY SAFE, MY CONSTITUTION UPHELD, MORALS TO BE VALUED IN THE FACE OF DEEP CRISES. AND I WANT MY PRESIDENT MUCH SMARTER THAN MYSELF BECAUSE I EXPECT A LOT FROM HIM.

Bush’s Legacy: Asleep at the wheel or too far removed too be of any use or effectiveness. Most days of President on Vacation.0

For the record, this isn’t “hate”. I don’t “hate” Bush. But I am embarrassed and disgusted that he was my President for 8 years. And I am pleased that he is in Texas now.

This sort of silliness says that part of modern times is that soft headed, simple folk seem to think the president is part superhero, able to divert nature with a mere breath, and part time traveler, able to undo 50 years of mismanagement at the stroke of H.G. Wells’ pen.

The response to Katrina was by the local, state, and federal government in the guise of FEMA. It is part of why local and state government exists, and *entirely* why FEMA exists.

Certainly the thousands of professionals working for the above agencies must be able to do their jobs without George Bush changing diapers.

I assure you that my IQ is significantly higher than you presume it is. That said, I can easily say that I don’t hate our former President. I think he was terrible at his job, grossly incompetent and negligent. I do not wish him ill will, I do not pray for his assassination or anything of that vein. I wish him a long life of hearing how bad he was at being a President. I know what I hate. I don’t hate Bush. I really, really, really don’t like him.

I think history will show that he was terrible at his job. He chose terrible people to surround him and unfortunately for our nation, at a great cost to the American people due to the tragedies/crises that occurred on his watch.

And no, I do not think GWB is a superhero. But let me posit this:

Who was President?
Who put FEMA under DHS?
Who put Michael Brown, a man with no Emergency experience, in charge of FEMA?
How long did it take GWB to get to the Gulf Coast?
What did the Federal Government do after Katrina?
What shape is the Gulf Coast still in?
What about the supplies that never made it after Katrina, the toxic mobile homes, etc?
What did the Army Core of Engineers say about the leevees and what was done?

You can swallow the Kool-Aid of state/local response. But when they are not equipped, then what? Do a flyover of the area and say, “Gosh and gee! Should have landed the plane…” Or “HeckuvajobBrownie”?

What do you do when your leadership fails you?

People like you absolve him for not taking responsibility for decisions he made, people he put in place, etc. He was our PRESIDENT. Who else is accountable?

- – - – - –

Interesting: Didn’t WND authenticate Obama’s birth certificate?

Per an 8/23/2008 article by Drew Zahn titled “Democrat sues Sen. Obama over ‘fraudulent candidacy’; Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims,” Mr. Zahn wrote this:

“…However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama’s actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama’s campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there…”

Okay, then, avoidswork. “AND I WANT MY PRESIDENT MUCH SMARTER THAN MYSELF BECAUSE I EXPECT A LOT FROM HIM” “I assure you that my IQ is significantly higher than you presume it is.” You probably place a lot of stock in test scores. GWB’s SATs were 566 verbal and 640 math. What are yours? Are they much higher? Kind of higher? Not higher? You watch a lot of TV and clearly you are a dork. Still, I’m betting you’re not much better than about a 1350. So does this mean you want your presidents to be 1351-1600? That would exclude a lot of good leaders my friend.

#82 — “Who put FEMA under DHS? Who put Michael Brown, a man with no Emergency experience, in charge of FEMA?”

This is utterly irrelevant, much like blaming any intelligence failure re WMD’s on whomever was running the CIA at the time. Fed agencies rely on their (thousands of) employees and their processes; they rely on the pros who are career people.

Come to think of it, almost everything you have written blaming Bush for perceived missteps is just as pointless.

Some intellectually and/or morally bankrupt types have blamed Bush for 9/11 as well, and many of these are the source of the same Katrina accusations. “It happened on Bush’s watch!” they say. Right. It was his fault. He negelected to completely reinvent the entire US intelligence apparatus in his first 8 months of office. Easy enough a caveman could do it. Obviously this is complete nonsense and **almost** as idiotic as blaming Bush for the ravages of a hurricane in an area that is at risk for — drumroll please — hurricanes.

In short, you got nothin’. Thanks for playing, though. You tried hard.

I should mention something. This topic is regarding the legacy of Bush. Just in case you don’t quite get this whole English thing, a legacy is something that is remembered many years down the road, something that affects future events. Funny, but I can’t recall what natural storms the opposition of Kennedy may have tried to blame him for in the heat of his tenure.

In my initial post in this topic, I discussed Bush’s handling of worldwide terrorism (#77.) THAT is a legacy level topic post.

To state up front, I am a military officer. My comments only represent my personal views and not those of anyone in the government or uniformed services.

The Bush legacy will be debated for years. My hunch is that he will be remembered more fondly as the years go by (not unlike his father, J. Carter, or H. Truman). He was forced to make some incredibly tough decisions based on the information presented to him. I might have made different decisions, and maybe I wouldn’t have. You don’t know until you are there. It is always easy for those of us not sitting in the hot-seat to second guess or rely on 3rd hand accounts found in books, the internet, or mainstream media. The fact is, only GW Bush knows why he made the decisions he did.

I am willing to give any president a pass on their decision making process. I do not believe B Clinton laid in bed at night and thought of ways to infuriate the right-wing or to destroy our democracy (unlike many in conservative radio). Like GWB, he did the best he could based on his judgment and the information provided.

Was Bush the smartest president in recent history? Probably not, but I wouldn’t want his responsibility, nor the scrutiny that comes with it.

Hopefully, Pres. OBama will have better luck at clarifying his message to the masses and a have a more effective presidency. But even if he doesn’t, it doesn’t mean he isn’t doing the right thing. It only means the results are readily apparent.

I’ll bet you reflect on that number frequently, DS. I would also wager your parents enjoyed talking to you about how smart you are while you were growing up, and enjoyed talking to their friends about it too. Which basically explains why you place a high value on that number. That’s, what, 99th percentile? With 2-3 million kids taking this test annually, that means you belong in the same category as about the top 30,000 kids. That annual pool is what you’d prefer to draw from for US president, then.

There are many problems I have with this opinion.

First, and most damaging to your presumed cause — it is racially and socioeconomically discriminatory. In seeking to exclude 1,500-, you are disproportionately excludinging poor folks and black folks in particular. I don’t like that, because I don’t think you’re qualified to judge the leadership potential of poor folks and black folks en masse. I find that quite preposterous, actually. Look no further than the “oarsman-regatta” controversy noted on wikipedia, in which many black folks, and frankly many white folks, might not have known what a “regatta” was. If you think those that did know this are more qualified to be president than those that didn’t, that frankly says more about you than it does about presidential qualifications. I wouldn’t have known what a regatta was at age 16, and if the other answers weren’t clearly wrong, I may well have missed this question.

Second, and this should be most damaging to your self esteem — the confluence of high SAT scores and actual general cognitive ability is definitely there, but you must apply inductive reasoning to conclude that all high SAT scores correlate with higher intelligence than all lower SAT scores. Your club might not be as exclusive as you think. You’re a smart guy, think about the value of inductive reasoning for a second — your SAT score (and all those as high as you) certainly might make you special relative to the Bell Curve’s masses. Then again, it might not. There may be folks out there who scored in the 1400s, or 1300s, etc., who are in fact smarter than you. In fact GWB might be smarter than you. Why exclude GWB because he got a 1206, if in fact he might be smarter than you and therefore would meet your exacting standards?

Further, the SAT evaluates aptitude for academic success in a college environment. Although you likely believe it measures more, that’s what the College Board thinks it does. It doesn’t measure someone’s ability to be a leader, to make decisions, etc. While it’s certainly possible that someone with a high SAT score has all those abilities, when such qualities are so vital in that office, why restrict the pool of persons you would consider? Are there not persons who scored 1400 that would make better presidents than those who scored 1500, and so on? How many US Presidents that you consider to be great would have scored as high as you did on the same SAT test you took?

Look, there are a great many people out there who got higher test scores than you did. Some of them are likely smarter than you, while others are likely not. For this reason, nobody should hang their hat on a test score. Test scores are valued most not by the people who did the best, but by people who did the best and depend on that fact as a part of their conception of their own value on this planet. I personally think it’s a shame when people consider themselves superior to others. It is particularly shameful when they do so based on what they were given (whether afforded by nature, nurture, or socioeconomic status), rather than what they do with what they were given. I wonder, which category are you in?

The SAT is mostly about picking from a set of options, something a President needs to do well. In fact, this is practically the essence of the job.

I’m not going to push for an IQ test, but it would be nice to have the best and brightest. We can dicker about the cutoff, but does anyone want a 5th percentile Commander in Chief? 30th percentile? Clearly that would be foolish.

Mostly I just wanted to poke fun at the idea that GWB’s scores were worthy of respect. 7th graders often do better than he did.

Many folks who did well on tests walk around thinking they are in the same league as Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Tesla, Archimedes, etc. In other words, many folks who did well on tests are nevertheless fools. I see them all the time and they are invariably the same.

GWB’s test scores are certainly not worthy of disrespect, by anyone and particularly by one of those fools, is all I’m saying. What if mine are lower than his? Does that mean that there is a 7th grader out there more qualified to be President than me?

Respectfully, I submit that if you’ve never been to a cabinet meeting, you’ve got no idea what “the essence of the job” is.

Personally, I think there are a lot of good leaders of average intellect, and a lot of above-average intellects who can’t even run their own household much less lead a large bureaucracy and sign legislation into law. I know you believe GWB is one of those. But assail the man’s actual policies and decisions rather than poke fun at his test scores.

We are all a mere closed head injury away from being significantly less mentally fit than we currently are. Instead of bashing the purported intellects of others, perhaps we should all be thankful for what we have.

There may indeed be a 7th grader out there more capable, but not one more qualified. Gotta be 35 years or older.

I must admit, I have yet to attend my first cabinet meeting. I think it is still safe to say that a President faces a lot of multiple choice decisions, and will be presented with options to select from. Every bill that is ratified in Congress presents such a decision – sign, veto, or wait. Certainly there’s a lot more to the office, but most of the day-to-day is delegated.

I’ve been quite busy assailing GWB’s policies and decisions, but when I see his SAT scores raised, as if these are a qualification, I can’t help but add my 2¢.

Certainly we are all a head injury away from being significantly less mentally fit – helmets help.

My response was meant as a tongue-in-cheek joke – and I wasn’t bashing anybody’s intellect, really.